2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;424742]You are libertarian- for small government for both social and economic policies.[/quote]I believe that is called Conservatism. Libertarian is slightly different.

[quote=]The opposite would be populists- large gov interventions both in social and economic policies.[/quote]In the US that is the Democrat party.

[quote=]The party / ideology of the president is unlikely to be related to the economic performance. Budget and fiscal bills must be passed by both the chambers of Congress and signed by the president.[/quote]Not so. The US Senate has not passed, nor has the President signed, a budget in years. I might also direct your attention to the $5T of additional debt that the current POTUS has burdened us with, in addition to the $20T of quantitative easing and FED giveaways and not including the expected trillions of additional debt to be forced upon us by Obamacare.

[quote=]Most of the time, the government has been divided government. So nobody can significantly change the content of the budget from the previous year's budget.[/quote]Obama, Reid and Pelosi ring any bells? See above.

[quote=]Monetary policy is run by the Fed, an independent agency insulated from the chief executive and Congress.[/quote]Just like the SCOTUS is immune from politics?

[quote=]Plus, the Federal govt spending only accounts for 25% of GDP. How could they influence the whole economy? We just need competitive labor force and innovative industries.[/QUOTE]The annual deficit (amount the federal government spends minus the revenue the feds bring in) becomes part of the cumulative federal debt. The deficit, over the past several years has grown from $161B (2007) to $489B (2008) to around $1.3T - $1.6T (2009-2011). In 2011 the annual deficit ($1.56T) was around 8.6% of GDP ($15.09T) , while federal spending ($3.834T) which is about 26% of GDP, which is outrageous. State plus local plus federal spending accounts for 40% of GDP. The total Federal debt is about $15.6T, which makes it about 100% of GDP.

Measuring this stuff against GDP is a reasonable way to view historical relationships between the numbers, however, it is irrelevant in setting them. Spending exceeds revenues by $1.5T. Therefore, spending is $1.5T too high. We are spending $27,000 per working American per year (about $13K/man, woman & child).

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales; 424756]Obama leads Romney in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-leads-romney-three-battleground-states-poll-shows-103942709.html[/url]

I guess those working class voters in these states really DO care that Romney utilized (now) illegal tax avoidance schemes, offshore bank accounts, and shorted his own national currency.[/QUOTE]Seems to me that those folks are a little more concerned about finding and keeping a job, putting food on the table and keeping their homes from foreclosure.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales; 424756]Obama leads Romney in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-leads-romney-three-battleground-states-poll-shows-103942709.html[/url]

I guess those working class voters in these states really DO care that Romney utilized (now) illegal tax avoidance schemes, offshore bank accounts, and shorted his own national currency.[/QUOTE]You are so gullable dude! Are you aware of the hidden constructs that many of these polls are based on. The only polls that currently show Obamantion ahead are those that model the results after the voter turnout of 2008, in which registered democrats outnumbered registered GOP voters by about 6-7% based on what reference you use. For a simple minded clod like yourself I will be happy to elaborate. These polls asssume a similar voter turnout this year, thus romney starts about 5-6% points down once they normailze the polls assuming high liberal turnout in 2012. Do you think this will happen in 2012? If you do I have some swamp land in florida you need to look at. LOL. The more interesting data to review is the change in the polls per state over the past 3 months. You will find that YOU cannot find a single poll that shows Obomantions numbers higher today than they were several months ago. Thus he is losing ground in all battleground states as each month passes. Thus ends today's lession. Lets just call it "politics for dummies", LIKE YOU! IALOTFLMAO. Keep it coming, your entertainment value is outstanding! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Do you guys even think about what opposing people write before responding or do you just discount it and blaze away?

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz;424761]Do you guys even think about what opposing people write before responding or do you just discount it and blaze away?[/QUOTE]I've been a student of this subject for a long, long time. I do comprehend what is being preferred and respect everyone's right to state their opinions. That said, I will dive in head first to rebut propaganda, lies and misinformation.

I prefer Progressive Republican like my childhood heros Senator Kuchel and Supreme Court Justice Warren. I actually do believe that government has a role in the economy like the great water projects that helped in the development of LA.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz;424761]Do you guys even think about what opposing people write before responding or do you just discount it and blaze away?[/QUOTE]Don't let my "flare" get in the way dude! At the end of the day its all fun anyway. Been in the US for 20 years and had a great run. Being born in a socialist country it really drives me a tad nuts to hear all this wild-ass liberal misinformation, distortions and in general ignorance. I grew up with this stuff, got the tee shirt and often wonder if SnakeBoy, WT69, Esten, etc. Really know what they are so longing to get. Sometimes you better be careful what you ask for as YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT! LOL. Socialism allows virtually no movement between the classes because there is no "american dream". What you are born into you stay at! You get national healthcare BUT north of 50% tax rate for virtually everybody. NICE! Monger on Dude. Toymann

Just seems like this argument has been going on forever. From the left EVERYTHING the right does is wrong and the same from the right. I think as long as Fox and MSNBC can keep both sides polarized the more money they will make. I don't think dialog between opposing viewpoints has ever been more important than it is right now. We have serious problems and as long as we allow elections to hang on non native born, socialist, muslim v idiotic fat cat oligarch they can get away with ducking real issues.

I want to see a debate moderated by Jon Stewart

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;424742]You are libertarian- for small government for both social and economic policies. The opposite would be populists- large gov interventions both in social and economic policies. The party / ideology of the president is unlikely to be related to the economic performance. Budget and fiscal bills must be passed by both the chambers of Congress and signed by the president. Most of the time, the government has been divided government. So nobody can significantly change the content of the budget from the previous year's budget. Monetary policy is run by the Fed, an independent agency insulated from the chief executive and Congress. Plus, the Federal govt spending only accounts for 25% of GDP. How could they influence the whole economy? We just need competitive labor force and innovative industries.[/QUOTE]I just think that we need to pay for the government we have. Obamacare front-loaded all the benefits and back-loaded the taxes. When Romney wins he is going to have a very difficult time pushing back on those benefits. Bush led us into war with Iraq while keeping the expense of the war out of the budget. I think we all would have accepted a tax increase to take down Hussein.

I read Johnson's view on Obamacare and don't necessarily agree. Whose freedom are we protecting anyway? Some of the shooting victims in Aurora had no health insurance. I am sure in the end the taxpayers will cover their costs. Isn't it an infringement on my freedom since I already have good health insurance that I have to cover for these victims? In some ways everybody is already insured and not everyone is paying which does not seem fair. I think that is what Chief Justice Roberts meant that the government has the right to tax for the common good. Are we really ready to watch people bleed to death if they do not have medical coverage? In a libertarian society you need to be willing to let people fail. I do not think I am willing to go to that extreme so you need to make compromises in a libertarian society also.

100 days to BA and I promise I will quit writing this nonsense although the election is over by the time I get there.

[QUOTE=Toymann;424760]You are so gullable dude! Are you aware of the hidden constructs that many of these polls are based on. The only polls that currently show Obamantion ahead are those that model the results after the voter turnout of 2008, in which registered democrats outnumbered registered GOP voters by about 6-7% based on what reference you use. For a simple minded clod like yourself I will be happy to elaborate. These polls asssume a similar voter turnout this year, thus romney starts about 5-6% points down once they normailze the polls assuming high liberal turnout in 2012. Do you think this will happen in 2012? If you do I have some swamp land in florida you need to look at. LOL. The more interesting data to review is the change in the polls per state over the past 3 months. You will find that YOU cannot find a single poll that shows Obomantions numbers higher today than they were several months ago. Thus he is losing ground in all battleground states as each month passes. Thus ends today's lession. Lets just call it "politics for dummies", LIKE YOU! IALOTFLMAO. Keep it coming, your entertainment value is outstanding! Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]The poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University / NYTimes / CBS news, institutions that correctly predicted Obama's victory in the 2008 election. You clearly are lacking in your understanding of politics and voting patterns as you cannot see outside your own socioeconomic level ($250k+/year I'm guessing). OF COURSE highly monied individuals such as yourself would want Romney as your president; he will cut your taxes and look out for your interests above those of the masses. Unfortunately for you, the working class voting population in Ohio and Florida (the only states that matter in this election) see Romney for what he really is, which is an aloof, awkward, out of touch Wall Street take no prisoners raider whose only interest is helping the rich get richer at any cost. Working class voters in Ohio and Florida simply cannot relate to Romney at all; they don't have off shore bank accounts, (now) illegal tax avoidance schemes, or Bermuda shell corporations.

I know there has been conjecture that snakeoilsales has never been to Argentina is not a legitmate contributor to argentinaprivate. I don't think we have to worry about that. I think snakeoilsales is an argie and the policies snakeoilsales advocates are the same policies that took Argentina from a prosperous country to third world status.

Furthermore, snakeoilsales policies would take the United States from a position of economic strength to second and third world status in short order.

Unfortuneately, listening to snakeoilsales is like listening to a box of rocks.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 424775]I just think that we need to pay for the government we have. Obamacare front-loaded all the benefits and back-loaded the taxes. When Romney wins he is going to have a very difficult time pushing back on those benefits. Bush led us into war with Iraq while keeping the expense of the war out of the budget. I think we all would have accepted a tax increase to take down Hussein.

I read Johnson's view on Obamacare and don't necessarily agree. Whose freedom are we protecting anyway? Some of the shooting victims in Aurora had no health insurance. I am sure in the end the taxpayers will cover their costs. Isn't it an infringement on my freedom since I already have good health insurance that I have to cover for these victims? In some ways everybody is already insured and not everyone is paying which does not seem fair. I think that is what Chief Justice Roberts meant that the government has the right to tax for the common good. Are we really ready to watch people bleed to death if they do not have medical coverage? In a libertarian society you need to be willing to let people fail. I do not think I am willing to go to that extreme so you need to make compromises in a libertarian society also.

100 days to BA and I promise I will quit writing this nonsense although the election is over by the time I get there.[/QUOTE]

Finally, a man who can see beyond his own nose.

SOS / MOPD:

Would you mind adding a little commentary or other color (other than Red) to your posts? I mean, the best propaganda is the kind that isn't obviously propaganda. Also, rote transcription from talking points gets long in the tooth, after a while.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;424779]The poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University / NYTimes / CBS news, institutions that correctly predicted Obama's victory in the 2008 election.[/quote]What is that they say about past performance not being indicative of future performance? Better yet, what is it that they say about a broken clock?

For the most part, these polls are constructed to deliver a result as opposed to actually measure a particular phenomenon. As Toyman pointed out, most all US political polls way over sample democrats. It is usually 8%.16, but I seen it as high as in the 30% range. Just because a poll indicated the eventual winner doesn't mean that it was accurate. The odds are 50/50 of picking the winner. There isn't a casino on earth that will give you those odds.

Why bother looking at the polls, anyway? Just do some independent thinking (sorry, I forgot to whom I was speaking). Let's look at some key constituencies (that democrats insist on treating as monolithic blocks) and Obama's popularity with each:

Hispanics: Obama, less popular with Hispanic voters.

Obama has given them backdoor amnesty and the dream act (via executive order) which has removed virtually all of our abilities to enforce the border. These things may have made him with illegal aliens and criminals. However, US citizens of LatAm origins are more concerned with their own socioeconomic situation and (predominantly Catholic) aren't too fond of the gay-marriage thing.

Blacks: Obama less popular with black voters.

Black unemployment is out of control. Things have gotten much worse for the black community, during Obama's reign of terror. Gay marriage is very unpopular with black voters.

White working class men: Obama is less popular with white working class men.

Nearly 17% of the people who want to work in this country can't find work. When it comes down to feeding your family and putting a roof over your family's heads these voters will most definitely go towards the candidate whom they feel will be better for the economy (not even Obama thinks he is that guy).

White women: Obama is less popular with white women.

White women, like black women like their men better when they are bringing home a paycheck.

Jewish voters: Obama is less popular with Jewish voters.

Just look at how rich, Jewish donors have stopped giving to Obama. They are starting to get the picture. It is difficult for even partisan Jews to reconcile Obama's support for groups bent on the destruction of Israel (since long before he was elected to office) and his claim that he isn't antisemitic (he is).

Gay, lesbian and transgender: Obama is MORE popular with GLBT voters.

They love the fact that he is denying Catholics and other religious groups their first Amendment rights and of course they like the gay marriage thing, which does nothing for them other than make them feel good. Representing approximately 1% of the US population, it is hard to figure how this block, which went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, can alone increase Obama's chances of success in 2012.

[quote=]You clearly are lacking in your understanding of politics and voting patterns as you cannot see outside your own socioeconomic level ($250k+/year I'm guessing). OF COURSE highly monied individuals such as yourself would want Romney as your president; he will cut your taxes and look out for your interests above those of the masses.[/quote]

What a load of patronizing, leftist crap. Obama has raised taxes on every single American - including those who pay no taxes at all (by deflating the value of the dollars in their pockets). Romney has never stated that he would impose regressive or progressive changes to the tax code. Nice try, though.

The rich elite in America, especially those who didn't earn it (hmmm?), have always been on the side of the democrats.


[quote=] Unfortunately for you, the working class voting population in Ohio and Florida (the only states that matter in this election) see Romney for what he really is, which is an aloof, awkward, out of touch Wall Street take no prisoners raider whose only interest is helping the rich get richer at any cost. Working class voters in Ohio and Florida simply cannot relate to Romney at all; they don't have off shore bank accounts, (now) illegal tax avoidance schemes, or Bermuda shell corporations.[/QUOTE]

You are out of your mind if you think that working class people are better prepared to survive the economic destruction that Obama has wrought upon us, than are the rich. That is preposterous. The working man and woman in the USA are getting killed by Obama and they know it. They will punish him at the voting booth.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 424788]SOS / MOPD:

Would you mind adding a little commentary or other color (other than Red) to your posts? I mean, the best propaganda is the kind that isn't obviously propaganda. Also, rote transcription from talking points gets long in the tooth, after a while.

What is that they say about past performance not being indicative of future performance? Better yet, what is it that they say about a broken clock?

For the most part, these polls are constructed to deliver a result as opposed to actually measure a particular phenomenon. As Toyman pointed out, most all US political polls way over sample democrats. It is usually 8. 16, but I seen it as high as in the 30% range. Just because a poll indicated the eventual winner doesn't mean that it was accurate. The odds are 50/50 of picking the winner. There isn't a casino on earth that will give you those odds.

Why bother looking at the polls, anyway? Just do some independent thinking (sorry, I forgot to whom I was speaking). Let's look at some key constituencies (that democrats insist on treating as monolithic blocks) and Obama's popularity with each:

Hispanics: Obama, less popular with Hispanic voters.

Obama has given them backdoor amnesty and the dream act (via executive order) which has removed virtually all of our abilities to enforce the border. These things may have made him with illegal aliens and criminals. However, US citizens of LatAm origins are more concerned with their own socioeconomic situation and (predominantly Catholic) aren't too fond of the gay-marriage thing.

Blacks: Obama less popular with black voters.

Black unemployment is out of control. Things have gotten much worse for the black community, during Obama's reign of terror. Gay marriage is very unpopular with black voters.

White working class men: Obama is less popular with white working class men.

Nearly 17% of the people who want to work in this country can't find work. When it comes down to feeding your family and putting a roof over your family's heads these voters will most definitely go towards the candidate whom they feel will be better for the economy (not even Obama thinks he is that guy).

White women: Obama is less popular with white women.

White women, like black women like their men better when they are bringing home a paycheck.

Jewish voters: Obama is less popular with Jewish voters.

Just look at how rich, Jewish donors have stopped giving to Obama. They are starting to get the picture. It is difficult for even partisan Jews to reconcile Obama's support for groups bent on the destruction of Israel (since long before he was elected to office) and his claim that he isn't antisemitic (he is).

Gay, lesbian and transgender: Obama is MORE popular with GLBT voters.

They love the fact that he is denying Catholics and other religious groups their first Amendment rights and of course they like the gay marriage thing, which does nothing for them other than make them feel good. Representing approximately 1% of the US population, it is hard to figure how this block, which went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, can alone increase Obama's chances of success in 2012.

What a load of patronizing, leftist crap. Obama has raised taxes on every single American. Including those who pay no taxes at all (by deflating the value of the dollars in their pockets). Romney has never stated that he would impose regressive or progressive changes to the tax code. Nice try, though.

The rich elite in America, especially those who didn't earn it (hmmm?) , have always been on the side of the democrats.

You are out of your mind if you think that working class people are better prepared to survive the economic destruction that Obama has wrought upon us, than are the rich. That is preposterous. The working man and woman in the USA are getting killed by Obama and they know it. They will punish him at the voting booth.[/QUOTE]Everything you just retorted with (with the exception of your assertion that less white males will vote for Obama in this election than in the prior election, I agree with this prediction) is wrong and just a bunch of eloquent bloviating. Blacks and Hispanics are going to vote for Obama en masse, no question about it.

Apparently the Romney campaign is so worried about the attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital that he is resorting to hiring an infamous gun for hire PR specialist:

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/romney-hires-pr-vet-bite-back-bain-attacks-224525572--abc-news-politics.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 424788]SOS / MOPD:

What a load of patronizing, leftist crap. Obama has raised taxes on every single American. Including those who pay no taxes at all (by deflating the value of the dollars in their pockets). Romney has never stated that he would impose regressive or progressive changes to the tax code. Nice try, though.

The rich elite in America, especially those who didn't earn it (hmmm?) , have always been on the side of the democrats.[/QUOTE]Hubbard came out today with Romney's plan.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/url]

His tax will be more regressive according to the article. There is a case too be made that taxes are too progressive right now. The reason Romney will not win in California is that this tax plan will raise taxes on taxpayers who have high deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes and state income taxes. 25% times $30000 is greater than 30% times $0.

Inflation has been low under Obama. The dollar fell against some currencies like the real, reminimbi and baht but I think that Romney has spoken that the reminimbi is was artificially low against the dollar and would take steps to reduce the discrepancy. Dollar is up against the euro. Gas and food are up but services like house cleaners and gardeners are getting paid the same as what I paid 5 years ago. Mortgage interest is down for everybody that can refinance.

You are liberal- pro gov activities in economic policy and anti gov interventions in social policy. Have fun in BA!

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 424775]I just think that we need to pay for the government we have. Obamacare front-loaded all the benefits and back-loaded the taxes. When Romney wins he is going to have a very difficult time pushing back on those benefits. Bush led us into war with Iraq while keeping the expense of the war out of the budget. I think we all would have accepted a tax increase to take down Hussein.

I read Johnson's view on Obamacare and don't necessarily agree. Whose freedom are we protecting anyway? Some of the shooting victims in Aurora had no health insurance. I am sure in the end the taxpayers will cover their costs. Isn't it an infringement on my freedom since I already have good health insurance that I have to cover for these victims? In some ways everybody is already insured and not everyone is paying which does not seem fair. I think that is what Chief Justice Roberts meant that the government has the right to tax for the common good. Are we really ready to watch people bleed to death if they do not have medical coverage? In a libertarian society you need to be willing to let people fail. I do not think I am willing to go to that extreme so you need to make compromises in a libertarian society also.

100 days to BA and I promise I will quit writing this nonsense although the election is over by the time I get there.[/QUOTE]

[blue][Report Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[blue]This 'report' was deleted by Admin because SnakeOilSales is not permitted to post rumors, leaks, gossip or any other unsubstantiated political wet dreams.

I like to remain relatively hands off of the political thread, but SnakeOilSales had demonstrated a propensity towards repeatedly posting innuendo after innuendo, supposition after supposition, and thus I've decided that I'm not going to let him continue to lob these unsubstantiated hand grenades into the discussion.

Like Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, ma'am"

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]

Why aren't we interested in Obama's income taxes? Whoops, forgot, nobody is interested in tax returns consisting entirely of welfare checks and food stamps.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;424797]Why aren't we interested in Obama's income taxes? Whoops, forgot, nobody is interested in tax returns consisting entirely of welfare checks and food stamps.[/QUOTE]I often wonder where is your source of information.

Somebody close to Obama said the following.

"He's never even had a real job for [God's] sake. And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works."

It is worse than we thought. Obama is clueless, a moron living in NeverNeverLand

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 424799]Somebody close to Obama said the following.

"He's never even had a real job for [God's] sake. And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works."

It is worse than we thought. Obama is clueless, a moron living in NeverNeverLand[/QUOTE]As I thought all along, it is your milkman.

The words are. El Alamo! Seeing as your selective outrage and editorial standards are pure horse shit! Why have we never seen this [Report Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[blue] This 'report' was deleted by Admin because EL ALAMO is not permitted to post rumors, leaks, gossip or any other unsubstantiated political wet dreams.

I like to remain relatively hands off of the political thread, but EL ALAMO had demonstrated a propensity towards repeatedly posting innuendo after innuendo, supposition after supposition, and thus I've decided that I'm not going to let him continue to lob these unsubstantiated hand grenades into the discussion.

Like Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, ma'am"

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 424791]Hubbard came out today with Romney's plan.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/url]

His tax will be more regressive according to the article. There is a case too be made that taxes are too progressive right now. The reason Romney will not win in California is that this tax plan will raise taxes on taxpayers who have high deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes and state income taxes. 25% times $30000 is greater than 30% times $0.

Inflation has been low under Obama. The dollar fell against some currencies like the real, reminimbi and baht but I think that Romney has spoken that the reminimbi is was artificially low against the dollar and would take steps to reduce the discrepancy. Dollar is up against the euro. Gas and food are up but services like house cleaners and gardeners are getting paid the same as what I paid 5 years ago. Mortgage interest is down for everybody that can refinance.[/QUOTE]The only thing that makes taxes progressive at the moment is the temporary suspension of the Social Security tax. When the average citizen pays this FEDERAL tax, the TOTAL Federal tax burden becomes very regressive.

Tres3

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 424791]Hubbard came out today with Romney's plan.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/url]

His tax will be more regressive according to the article. There is a case too be made that taxes are too progressive right now. The reason Romney will not win in California is that this tax plan will raise taxes on taxpayers who have high deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes and state income taxes. 25% times $30000 is greater than 30% times $0.[/QUOTE]I must have missed the part where he describes the regressive nature of the potential reforms. I know Glenn, so I will give he a call and ask.

[quote=]Inflation has been low under Obama. The dollar fell against some currencies like the real, reminimbi and baht but I think that Romney has spoken that the reminimbi is was artificially low against the dollar and would take steps to reduce the discrepancy. Dollar is up against the euro. Gas and food are up but services like house cleaners and gardeners are getting paid the same as what I paid 5 years ago. Mortgage interest is down for everybody that can refinance.[/QUOTE]Inflation, as reported by the federal government, is a nearly useless factoid which has been crafted for political and not economic purposes. What two things do you rely more heavily upon, for your survival, other than food and fuel? Further, the Treasury has been printing trillions of dollars which decreases the value of the dollars that you hold, making the commodities that you purchase more expensive (sounds like inflation to me). This dilution of the value of the dollar and anemic interest rates combine to make investment in the dollar less attractive, therefore depressing the value of the dollar versus other major currencies. Free trading FOREX is a pretty straight forward example of supply and demand, although the calculation is fairly complex. If it were not for the perceived security of the dollar (in the face of many types of risk, not the least of which is the deterioration of the Eurozone) , it would have dropped further. One of the things Obama doesn't tell you is that by destroying the value of the dollar, our exports should be less expensive which, under normal circumstances, would increase the volume of our exports (stimulative to the economy). But, like every other parlor trick that this amateur has tried, it has failed. This is due mostly to the complete lack of knowledge and experience from the president on down through all of his sycophants and toadies. In order for that trick to work, there has to be some global economic growth. I am not a fan of deflating the dollar, regardless of the party doing it. I, to this day, would like to hang Nick Brady by his toes (metaphorically, of course. Plus, he is deceased) for doing exactly that.

[QUOTE=Tres3; 424802]The only thing that makes taxes progressive at the moment is the temporary suspension of the Social Security tax. When the average citizen pays this FEDERAL tax, the TOTAL Federal tax burden becomes very regressive.

Tres3[/QUOTE]Are you saying that the current taxation regime is regressive?

I believe that we agree that the social security tax is quite regressive, so its suspension is progressive.

However, the US tax system is anything but regressive. In the US, the bottom 50% of the economic ladder pays no taxes at all. The next 25% of wage earners pay around 13% of all income taxes and the next 25% of wage earners pay 87% of all income taxes. As the amount of income increase, so does the applicable tax rate. That is the definition of progressive taxation. From the IRS, itself (IRS SOI Stats 2009) , published during the reign of our supreme leader:

[quote=]The United States has a progressive income tax structure, meaning that different portions of taxable income are taxed at different rates with the “last” income received being taxed at the highest or marginal tax rate. From the inception of the individual income tax in 1913, tax rates have varied from as low as 1 percent to as high as 94 percent. Since 1916, the IRS has been publishing income and tax statistics based on information reported on federal tax returns filed by U.S. individual taxpayers.[/quote]This bullet is buried a little deeper, after multiple bullets trying to create supporting evidence for the 99%:

[quote=]For returns reporting positive adjusted gross income, the top 1 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 24 percent; the top 10 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 18.1 percent; and the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 1.9 percent.[/quote]

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales; 424795][blue][Report Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[blue]This 'report' was deleted by Admin because SnakeOilSales is not permitted to post rumors, leaks, gossip or any other unsubstantiated political wet dreams.

I like to remain relatively hands off of the political thread, but SnakeOilSales had demonstrated a propensity towards repeatedly posting innuendo after innuendo, supposition after supposition, and thus I've decided that I'm not going to let him continue to lob these unsubstantiated hand grenades into the discussion.

Like Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, ma'am"

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue][/QUOTE]Don't be such a biased hypocrite. I posted a link to a legitimate news story about a current event from a legitimate source (yahoo) to back up the leak. You allow the other participants of this thread to post unsubstantiated nonsense about Obama (birthers, Obama collects food stamps, everyone that supports Obama is subhuman, Obama has destroyed US economy, Obama's goal is the destruction of the USA) without even a link to a legitimate news story to back it up, yet when I post a link to a legitimate source containing pertinent information that MAY play an ENORMOUS role in the outcome of this coming election, you delete it.

Perhaps it is becoming increasingly clear to you that Romney is a terrible candidate and, barring an unforeseen calamitous event before November, has no chance of beating the current POTUS. You are probably exasperated by this and your reaction is to "shoot the messenger"

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 424799]Somebody close to Obama said the following.

"He's never even had a real job for [God's] sake. And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works."

It is worse than we thought. Obama is clueless, a moron living in NeverNeverLand[/QUOTE]I saw that, too. I have long said that no matter where Obama is, he is the least qualified and least experienced and least knowledgeable person in the room. I believe that comment has been attributed to John Boehner (R-Ohio) and current Speaker of the House, who is not a Conservative, but is a great improvement over Pelosi, who willing helped lead the rape and pillage of the American taxpayer and our Constitution. Despite Boehner's position, within the opposition, he is absolutely right.

I was saying this stuff before he knocked Hillary out of the primaries. I usually don't read contemporary political books, however, I recently read "The Amateur" by Ed Kline (someone left it at our Dacha). While I was familiar with much of the information contained in the book, it was an excellent read (finished it over a span of 24 hours). He puts a myriad of excellent examples of his amateurism together in one place. It isn't focused on stuff like giving the Queen of England and iPod, preloaded with his own speeches. It is focused on actions and events that illustrate just how unfit for office he really is.

Another thing that you never hear is the fact that the only election he has actually won (without unsealing confidential court documents and using them (illegally) to disparage his opponent) was 2008.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 424805]Are you saying that the current taxation regime is regressive?

I believe that we agree that the social security tax is quite regressive, so its suspension is progressive.

However, the US tax system is anything but regressive. In the US, the bottom 50% of the economic ladder pays no taxes at all. The next 25% of wage earners pay around 13% of all income taxes and the next 25% of wage earners pay 87% of all income taxes. As the amount of income increase, so does the applicable tax rate. That is the definition of progressive taxation. From the IRS, itself (IRS SOI Stats 2009) , published during the reign of our supreme leader:

This bullet is buried a little deeper, after multiple bullets trying to create supporting evidence for the 99%:[/QUOTE]Read the entire post! I said, in capital letters, TOTAL. That means Social Security, Medicare, and Income taxes. Only a small portion of the tax paying population pays 87% of their income in tax. Most of the wealthy can afford good tax planners and advisers, so they pay far less than 87. I agree that the rate increases, but that is only the statutory rate, NOT the actual, effective rate paid. There are quite a few millionaires who pay NO federal taxes. I was one of the "Best and Brightest" who helped them pay no, or very little, Federal tax, and was well compensated for doing so.

I stand by my original post, that without the suspension of the Social Security tax, the TOTAL Federal tax actually paid by the tax paying public is regressive. Many of the poor people who pay no income tax still pay Social Security and Medicare tax. You can call the taxes what you want, but they are still income taxes collected by the Federal Government.

Tres3

[QUOTE=Tres3; 424802]The only thing that makes taxes progressive at the moment is the temporary suspension of the Social Security tax. When the average citizen pays this FEDERAL tax, the TOTAL Federal tax burden becomes very regressive.

Tres3[/QUOTE]What you wrote above is absolutely not true. This is from a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and shows the average tax rate paid by people in various income groups. If you want to check me, go to [url]http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373[/url] and click on the first supplemental table. The figures below include ALL federal taxes, including social security tax:

Top 1%: 28.9% average federal tax rate.
Top 5%: 24.1% average federal tax rate.
Top 20%: 23.2%
Fourth Quintile: 15.1%
Third Quintile: 11.1%
Second Quintile: 6.8%
Bottom 20%: 1.0%

Your belief is common. I believe it stems from two things:

1. Democrats like Obama knowingly lie because they think it will get them more votes. This is why Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer favor only raising taxes on those making more than $1 million per year. Because they realize the "tax the rich" thing is populist bull shit, and a $1 million threshhold gets them more votes than a $250,000 threshhold. There are a lot of people who make in the $250,000 to $1,000,000 range in San Francisco and Manhattan, and Nancy and Chuck want their votes.

2. The desire of the majority to steal from the minority. People bend the truth to suit their beliefs and desires. They don't realize there are unintended consequences (on businesses, savings and investment) of stealing a large share of income from the wealthy.

If you download the Excel table I describe above on the CBO's web site, you'll see that your argument that the federal tax system would be regressive if not for the 2% reduction in social security tax doesn't wash. There's data there from 1979 to 2009, and the federal tax system is steeply progressive in all years.

Tres, a question, since you believe it's appropriate to include social security and medicare contributions in a person's total federal tax rate. Do you believe people who make over $250,000 a year should pay for the retirement and medical expenses of those less fortunate? And how do you expect this would work, since increasing their taxes enough to do this would potentially bankrupt many of them?

Please note in my reply below, I did include social security and medicare contributions in the total federal tax rate, and even then the federal system is steeply progressive.

Before you get excommunicated from the board I wished to post this for your edification Snake.

I wrote the Nam missive right after reading a post from you denigrating the 'Great Satan' for bombing the poor folks in Laos who had only slingshots to defend themselves. I have gone back over your prior posts and have been unable to find that particular post again. Did you delete it?

If anyone remembers this post by Snake please confirm it if you recall it.

Otherwise, I may have confused Snake's ranting with another liberal hate American numskull on a different site and I would owe Snake an apology.

See, Conservatives are always willing to admit if they are mistaken, while liberals never admit they are wrong.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 424811]Before you get excommunicated from the board I wished to post this for your edification Snake.

I wrote the Nam missive right after reading a post from you denigrating the 'Great Satan' for bombing the poor folks in Laos who had only slingshots to defend themselves. I have gone back over your prior posts and have been unable to find that particular post again. Did you delete it?

If anyone remembers this post by Snake please confirm it if you recall it.

Otherwise, I may have confused Snake's ranting with another liberal hate American numskull on a different site and I would owe Snake an apology.

See, Conservatives are always willing to admit if they are mistaken, while liberals never admit they are wrong.[/QUOTE]Let me volunteer my despicable self as the "liberal hate American numskull". So Conservatives are all righteous and will all go to heaven. It is a relief to know, as I consider myself a conservative.

Vietnam, like the Cultural Revolution for China, is a chapter in our history that tends to embarass us and is best forgotten. This is not intended to disparage any Vietnam Vets.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;424806]Don't be such a biased hypocrite. I posted a link to a legitimate news story about a current event from a legitimate source (yahoo) to back up the leak.[/quote]What do you call someone who says one thing and does another?

It is almost like Saul Alinsky is here in the room with us. I think that it is important to make a distinction between what SOS / MOPD is and run of the mill democrats and / or liberals. SOS / MOPD is not an independently-minded democrat or liberal. He is, to the discussion, what dysentery is to a toilet. He isn't here to engage in the free exchange of ideas, he is here as a propagandist trying to further Marxist ideology and contribute, knowingly or not, to the destruction of many of the things that most of us love about the US.

In a public forum that falls under the auspices of US law most people have the right of free speech, even if what they have to say is idiotic or deleterious to the Country, its institutions and certain individuals (certain public figures). However, this forum is neither public nor subject to US law, (despite the fact that its owner may be). Jax has been pretty consistent that AP members need contribute to the primary mission of the forum, the gentleman's pursuit of the finer things in Argentina. Further, Jax has been pretty consistent in trying to eliminate personal attacks. You have not contributed to the pursuit of the finer things in Argentina and you have distributed lies about an individual. By joining Harry Reid in your attempt to smear Romney with lies, you are participating in perpetuating a lie and an unfounded personal attack. Harry Reid is a despicable human being who, despite never having a real job (I. E. Private sector) and coming from a poor family, has amassed an extraordinary amount of wealth. Harry Reid also has never publicly disclosed his own tax returns, despite holding public offices for the past 44 years. I'the like to know how a public servant, whose boyhood home didn't have an indoor toilet, has become a multimillionaire. I'the like to see Harry Reid's tax returns. I question whether or not you understand the definition of hypocrisy.

I have no problem with democrats or liberals. In fact, while I may disagree with them, I fully support their right to express themselves. I welcome the spirited exchange of ideas and the art of debate. However, the liberal minority (of the US population) is driven by a core of Leftists, who are not independently-minded, self-described democrats and liberals. That Leftist core can't advance its agenda through the truthful articulation of what it is, because America has repudiated it, many times during her history. The Leftists don't engage in debate, don't articulate and support arguments and won't intentionally reveal its fundamental tenets to the full American public, for fear of becoming an even smaller minority. Therein lays the difference between Conservatives and the Leftist. That is in fact a double-edged sword of freedom. The genuine exploitation of freedom must coexist with the expected abuse of freedom, even when those abuses are harmful to the nation, because any alternative construct, whatever it may be, is not freedom. In essence, we must hold the door open for SOS / MOPD and his ilk and allow them to try their best to damage the country. I feel that it is important for us to defend the country and repudiate Marxism, in all of its forms, manifestations and derivatives on the battlefield of ideas, where we have an enormous advantage, the truth. The left knows this and has known this since one of its grandfathers, the seditious Aaron Burr, assassinated one of the Founders. That is why they need the tactics of Alinsky, derived from their heroes of thought Mao, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Gini and Engels. The Leftist Obama has never engaged in a truthful, public debate or discussion of his philosophy. When he goes off-script (off-teleprompter) he gives us a glimpse at the man behind the curtain. Look at how fast they pull the curtain back to hide the reality.

So is SOS / MOPD immune to reason? Why is he unwilling to make and support arguments? Is it because he doesn't understand, chooses to ignore or is afraid to reveal what lies beneath his ideology? SOS / MOPD has the right to be a cool aid drinker, if he so chooses. However, furthering his ideology at all costs, without regard for the country, its institutions or any specific individual, reveals his true identity. My question: is damaging the nation his intent, or is he just a useful idiot? So, SOS / MOPD, are you a committed Marxist or mindless sycophant?

Doppelganger, You may be right about Snake. You've confused Esten and me. While Esten would probably be great to have a beer with, we're usually polar opposites on this board.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 424812]Let me volunteer my despicable self as the "liberal hate American numskull". So Conservatives are all righteous and will all go to heaven. It is a relief to know, as I consider myself a conservative.

Vietnam, like the Cultural Revolution for China, is a chapter in our history that tends to embarass us and is best forgotten. This is not intended to disparage any Vietnam Vets.[/QUOTE]No Black Shirt all conservatives are NOT going to heaven and all liberals are NOT going to hell, this was only about admitting when you are wrong.

Hell, I'm not going heaven since I wouldn't know a damn person there.

You know what they say you go to heaven for the climate and to hell for companionship

Tres, are you aware the great majority of employees only pay HALF of the Social Security and Medicare Payroll Taxes? Employers pay the other half unless the employee is self employed, then they get the privilege of paying both sides, employer and employee payroll assessments.

I would assume you wish to include Social Security & Medicaid in the "Total" tax payersis so the 49+% of folks who do not pay federal income taxes can now be included as "tax payers" for your argument regarding the tax system.

This premise is false on its face as those who pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes will benefit far beyond the amounts they contribute into these partially self funded Direct Benefit systems. It falls to the 50% of the citizens who do pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES to make up the short fall in the Medicare and Social Security systems as well as the totally UNFUNDED welfare, food stamp, Medicaid and myriad of other Federal give away programs.

Do the math, the increases Obama wants will not even begin to pay for the deficit spending Obama has run up THIS YEAR much less pay off the debt. This pure class warfare at its worst.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 424813]What do you call someone who says one thing and does another?

It is almost like Saul Alinsky is here in the room with us. I think that it is important to make a distinction between what SOS / MOPD is and run of the mill democrats and / or liberals. SOS / MOPD is not an independently-minded democrat or liberal. He is, to the discussion, what dysentery is to a toilet. He isn't here to engage in the free exchange of ideas, he is here as a propagandist trying to further Marxist ideology and contribute, knowingly or not, to the destruction of many of the things that most of us love about the US.

In a public forum that falls under the auspices of US law most people have the right of free speech, even if what they have to say is idiotic or deleterious to the Country, its institutions and certain individuals (certain public figures). However, this forum is neither public nor subject to US law, (despite the fact that its owner may be). Jax has been pretty consistent that AP members need contribute to the primary mission of the forum, the gentleman's pursuit of the finer things in Argentina. Further, Jax has been pretty consistent in trying to eliminate personal attacks. You have not contributed to the pursuit of the finer things in Argentina and you have distributed lies about an individual. By joining Harry Reid in your attempt to smear Romney with lies, you are participating in perpetuating a lie and an unfounded personal attack. Harry Reid is a despicable human being who, despite never having a real job (I. E. Private sector) and coming from a poor family, has amassed an extraordinary amount of wealth. Harry Reid also has never publicly disclosed his own tax returns, despite holding public offices for the past 44 years. I'the like to know how a public servant, whose boyhood home didn't have an indoor toilet, has become a multimillionaire. I'the like to see Harry Reid's tax returns. I question whether or not you understand the definition of hypocrisy.

I have no problem with democrats or liberals. In fact, while I may disagree with them, I fully support their right to express themselves. I welcome the spirited exchange of ideas and the art of debate. However, the liberal minority (of the US population) is driven by a core of Leftists, who are not independently-minded, self-described democrats and liberals. That Leftist core can't advance its agenda through the truthful articulation of what it is, because America has repudiated it, many times during her history. The Leftists don't engage in debate, don't articulate and support arguments and won't intentionally reveal its fundamental tenets to the full American public, for fear of becoming an even smaller minority. Therein lays the difference between Conservatives and the Leftist. That is in fact a double-edged sword of freedom. The genuine exploitation of freedom must coexist with the expected abuse of freedom, even when those abuses are harmful to the nation, because any alternative construct, whatever it may be, is not freedom. In essence, we must hold the door open for SOS / MOPD and his ilk and allow them to try their best to damage the country. I feel that it is important for us to defend the country and repudiate Marxism, in all of its forms, manifestations and derivatives on the battlefield of ideas, where we have an enormous advantage, the truth. The left knows this and has known this since one of its grandfathers, the seditious Aaron Burr, assassinated one of the Founders. That is why they need the tactics of Alinsky, derived from their heroes of thought Mao, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Gini and Engels. The Leftist Obama has never engaged in a truthful, public debate or discussion of his philosophy. When he goes off-script (off-teleprompter) he gives us a glimpse at the man behind the curtain. Look at how fast they pull the curtain back to hide the reality.

So is SOS / MOPD immune to reason? Why is he unwilling to make and support arguments? Is it because he doesn't understand, chooses to ignore or is afraid to reveal what lies beneath his ideology? SOS / MOPD has the right to be a cool aid drinker, if he so chooses. However, furthering his ideology at all costs, without regard for the country, its institutions or any specific individual, reveals his true identity. My question: is damaging the nation his intent, or is he just a useful idiot? So, SOS / MOPD, are you a committed Marxist or mindless sycophant?[/QUOTE]Politically, AP is a conservative think tank?

[QUOTE=Tres3;424808]Read the entire post! I said, in capital letters, TOTAL. That means Social Security, Medicare, and Income taxes. Only a small portion of the tax paying population pays 87% of their income in tax.[/quote]I think that you may misinterpreted that first group of statistic. I was illuminating the fact that the poor pay no taxes, at all.

[quote=]Most of the wealthy can afford good tax planners and advisers, so they pay far less than 87. I agree that the rate increases, but that is only the statutory rate, NOT the actual, effective rate paid.[/quote]You are correct about the progression. Just to be clear, the statutory marginal income tax rates run from 10% to 35%. When you add up the marginal impact on an W-2 income of $1 million, the actual rate, with no deductions is 41.2%. Good tax planning can help to reduce the rate, but it isn't that simple.

[quote=]There are quite a few millionaires who pay NO federal taxes. I was one of the "Best and Brightest" who helped them pay no, or very little, Federal tax, and was well compensated for doing so.[/quote]There are plenty of ways to legally reduce taxes and in some cases it can result in little or no tax being owed on significant income. If all of one's income comes in the form of capital gains, you can start off with a 15% rate, which is a pretty big head start on reducing the 41.2%. Big lefty Bill Gates has always had a relatively small salary. I wonder if he overpaid his taxes to make up for the disparity. However, if you are doing this legally, you need to have legitimate items to offset almost all of the positive numbers that contribute to adjusted gross income. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but a return with $1 million of income, but no taxable income is a red flag at the IRS.

[quote=]I stand by my original post, that without the suspension of the Social Security tax, the TOTAL Federal tax actually paid by the tax paying public is regressive.[/quote]You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

[quote=]Many of the poor people who pay no income tax still pay Social Security and Medicare tax. You can call the taxes what you want, but they are still income taxes collected by the Federal Government.

Tres3[/QUOTE]FICA is 7.65% (6.2% for social security and 1.45% for medicaid) , which is significantly below the average paid by high income earners. If you are calculating taxation of the poor, you need to net out the total value of fungible government benefits received (food stamps, welfare, free healthcare, etc.). Further, a significant portion of the recipients of such assistance report no income to the government and therefore are being paid by the government, which continues the progressive nature of the system onto non-earners.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;424817]Politically, AP is a conservative think tank?[/QUOTE]Not at all. Most of the AP'ers that I have met in person don't agree with me on most political topics. Unless they enjoy political debate, it isn't part of our interaction. Like I have said many times before, I stand for the rights of everyone to express their beliefs, if they feel compelled to do so. Most of my friends (I have a couple) , probably fall into the middle of the political morass and a couple of them are hardcore leftist (who openly admit that they are for socialism and Marxism). I generally find that I have to spend a fair amount of time explaining what being a conservative means to me. That is in large part thanks to our leftist activists and the media (is that redundant) , who have been deliberately misinforming the public about conservatism and anything related to it. They paint it all with a religious brush and scream guns and abortion at the top of their lungs.

I was drawing a clear distinction between individuals who are self-described democrats or liberals and political operatives like SOS / MOPD.